Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting this amendment. This amendment actually has the effect of limiting disclosure and transparency. What is being proposed by the opposition would prevent workers from finding out what benefits are flowing to those closely associated with their union—for example, payments made to a company run by a union boss. It would hide from workers the kinds of payments the royal commission uncovered that were regularly being made by employers to slush funds that were actually controlled by union bosses. We on this side of the chamber believe that these payments should be disclosed, as should payments to any legitimate entity controlled by a union official that is receiving payments from the employer. Again, this amendment will have the effect of limiting the disclosure and transparency that I would hope we're all trying to achieve.

In terms of the definition of 'related party' that is currently in the bill: it is an existing concept and it has been taken from the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. This is nothing new. There really is no credible argument for deviating from that definition. Again, the effect of the amendment would be that you may end up creating legal loopholes, particularly for employer organisations. This is because much of the proposed definition of 'related party' hinges on the existence of a branch of an organisation, whereas not all organisations are actually defined by 'branches'. This is a significant deficiency that we would not support, as the bill should apply equally to disclosure by unions and employer organisations.

The CHAIR: The question is that item (16) on sheet 8143 be agreed to.